So the issue is that currently there are two things upholding The Boys 8-A rating as detailed in this upgrade
thread. The first was this recalculation - which has proven to be using faulty equation - and the second was the neutron bomb statement, which even in the upgrade thread was explicitly stated to be a
supporting factor. This was repeated
here by the Mod.
Now the recalculation has proven to be faulty which makes this statement either an outlier or an exaggeration.
Let me repeat: for an statement to be considered an "outlier," it must exceed the normal capacity of those characters, and we don't know what their normal capacity are.
And that’s no exaggeration.
If we have verses that have feats at 9-A but a single statement that says "He can destroy the world if he wanted to", do we automatically make the verse 5-B?
To answer the question, if the 9-A feats in question do not cause any harm to the characters, and the 5-B statement come from a character who is the head of a company that began researching the character while he was still a single cell, conducted experiments on him for years, and developed a special shelter to protect himself against this character, then yes, we would upgrade the verse to 5-B.
No of course not. At best you would get a possibly rating but even that is a debate for another CRT.
In short
@ByArrow, a single statement isn't enough to preserve the Boys rating.
It is.
I get where this is coming from, but characters still do need feats.
No. If the statement is valid and there is no contradiction, then they can scale.
They can upscale from their feats sure, but if they have never been shown to have feats remotely near this level - in the case of Homelander a nearly 200 times difference between the feat and statement - then the best you are going to get is a "Possibly" rating.
No. The Boys has enough things to be sufficient for a strict rating.
The neutron bomb statement that was contigent on already accepted calc and is now considered an outlier?
Neutron bomb isn't an outliner. And you haven't proven that it is.
Do you have any other calcs justifying the 8-A rating?
Yes, but it hasn't been approved yet.
So the wiki should give preference to statements that contradict existing feats?
There is no contradiction here. For there to be a contradiction, the feats in question would have to have caused harm to the characters. Since the feats in question did not cause harm to the characters, there is no contradiction.
So if a character A has barely Wall Level feats, but Character B goes "HE HAS THE POWER TO DESTROY THE UNIVERSE", then we should make the character Universal or downscale them from that?
This situation is not the same as The Boys.
In the example you gave, the characters barely have the 9-B feats, so these feats aren’t the things they can withstand without taking damage. And Character B is just another character, so the validity of that statement is debatable, and since Character A barely has any 9-B feats, it’s contradictory.
In the case of The Boys, Character A and those scaled to him have two High 8-C feats where they take no damage, and they clearly scale to above these. It’s not barely.
Character B is the head of the company that developed the source of Character A’s powers and conducted experiments and tests on him while he was still just a cell, and continued these experiments and tests throughout his childhood.
And Character B had a shelter built that could withstand the force of a neutron bomb to protect himself from Character A.
It also stated that Character A could destroy many cities, and that a character weaker than Character A would require a hydrogen bomb to be killed.
You misunderstood me. The characters are scaling to the neutron bomb statement, not this calculation. And removing this calculation doesn’t directly change what they’re currently scaling to, so they don’t drop directly to High 8-C.
I didn’t
The calculation was accepted when the CRT was created, but the formula used for the 600-ton was rejected after the thread was created.
Except it is
clearly on the profile, and
it was accepted. I don't know whether you are lying or confused.
I’m not lying. The fact that it's in the profile is the person who applied the update's mistake. But if you look at the statistical value and the explanation section, you can see that they are scales to the neutron bomb statement.
Also, I am the one who did the calculation, and this calculation is currently invalid because the formula used by the accepted end has been rejected.
So even if a statement wildly contradicts the feats given by the verse to the point of them being outliers, we can still scale them to these statements? Congratulations, you are
contradicting the foundation of feats for VSBW
This statement is not contradictory. And you haven’t proven that this is a contradiction. The fact that the characters’ other feats are High 8-C does not create a contradiction, since they do not take damage from those feats.
Besides, you haven’t proven that there’s a contradiction. Unless you can prove that the High 8-C feats are their maximum, there’s no contradiction to speak of. It’s like saying that just because Superman has 9-B feats, the others must be contradictory.
I know this has more or less been gone over, but I will restate it there is only this feat and a statement. A statement which is now a gross outlier and should be disregarded completely at its worst or a justification of a "Possibly" rating at its best
Once again, you haven’t proven that it’s outliner.
